linux-kernel - Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:57:58 +0100
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>, david@...g.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 13:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i fully support the notion you articulate, that whether bin-only modules 
> are part of a derivative work of the kernel or whether they are 
> independent works is not an automatic thing at all. The answer is: "it 
> depends, talk to your lawyer".

I was actually trying to avoid the question altogether. It's not that
interesting, largely because the answer is indeed 'talk to your lawyer'.

> For example i'd say VMWare's ESX bin-only module is likely derived
> from the Linux kernel and should be distributed under the GPL, but
> that for example the ATI and nvidia drivers, although being a large
> PITA for all of us, are possibly independent works.

And thus not affected by the GPL _if_ they are distributed as separate
works in their own right. But if you bundle them with the kernel into a
product, the GPL has something to say about that.

> but lets note that this is irrelevant to the Tivo argument. Tivo is not 
> using bin-only modules AFAIK,

Right. It was a digression, which I picked up on because people were
talking about derived works in the context of modules again, and missing
the point that the most _obvious_ GPL violation with modules doesn't
actually involve those modules being a derived work at all.

-- 
dwmw2

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/